oh i see. our lessons were only three in class lessons and 4 sessions in car. your parentsor someone over twenty one had to drive with you for at least sixty hours, ten of which had to be at night. the lessons were just to confirm what your parents already taught you, more or less

Hi i am new on here my name is Les and i am a fully qualified driving instructor. I have been watching this thread with interest i don't need to add much because what Tony has posted on here says it all really, all i want to point out is, like many others who say "when i learnt to drive i only had about 8 lessons and passed 1st time" well i did more or less the same in 1972, i was 17 in the January had around 10 or 12 lessons then passed in the April of that year. I don't remember much about my test it was so long ago, but what i do know is that the standard needed to pass today is a hell of a lot higher than it was back in 1972, the roads are a lot busier now, and there are many more roundabouts and some very complicated ones on the roads today, as a result the items on the syllabus has increased and there is much more to cover on lessons than there ever was. They are just some of the reasons why it takes longer to get to a competent level of driving ability than it did all those years ago. Around 3500 people are killed on our roads every year and to help reduce this figure we have to teach people to drive safely for the rest of there driving lives by teaching defensive driving techniques and it cant be done in 6 or 10 lessons, not on todays roads.Thanks for reading this.Les.

There's no minimum or maximum amount of lessons necessary to take the UK test, and you don't need to take any lessons with an instructor if you don't want to. The test is a stand alone thing which takes no notice of your experience.

All you have to do is drive safely in a variety of circumstances for 40 minutes.

If you're wondering where all the instructors popped up from it's because someone posted a link to this thread from one of the driving instructor forums (hence the cryptic comment by kis earlier), which is how I found this.

On the instructor forum one of the instructors made a simple and I think extremely valid comment:

I can teach you to drive in 2 hours - can you learn that quick?

Logged

another_someone

I don't remember much about my test it was so long ago, but what i do know is that the standard needed to pass today is a hell of a lot higher than it was back in 1972, the roads are a lot busier now, and there are many more roundabouts and some very complicated ones on the roads today, as a result the items on the syllabus has increased and there is much more to cover on lessons than there ever was. They are just some of the reasons why it takes longer to get to a competent level of driving ability than it did all those years ago. Around 3500 people are killed on our roads every year and to help reduce this figure we have to teach people to drive safely for the rest of there driving lives by teaching defensive driving techniques and it cant be done in 6 or 10 lessons, not on todays roads.Thanks for reading this.Les.

I think we have to separate two issues here - both are legitimate concerns

road safety and the need for proper driver training

the cost of undertaking a function of everyday life that is scarcely a matter of discretionary choice for many people in many parts of the country (namely, driving a car or motorcycle)

Arguably (and it has been mentioned) even pedestrians should be trained in road use.

It seems to me that this is an argument for having a substantial amount of pre-driver and early driver training in schools, thus reducing the cost to the individual, while it should improve road safety for all road users (not just car drivers). Yes, there is still a cost in taxation - but taxation is where one raises money for the benefit of the community, and this training should be of benefit to the community, not just to the individual. It will not remove the requirement for driver training, but should substantially reduce the number of lessons required, and so the cost of it.

The DofT have been looking at introducing something similar, and encouraging schools to introduce this from year 1 onwards. Unfortunately at the most important stages (years 10 thru 13) there are far too many demands on teachers and schools curriculum space.

There is usually a reduction in costs to the tax payer from extra training which either outweighs or is commensurate with the costs of implementing the training. This is why many companies are finding that the company driver training that they felt they were forced into taking (with H&S laws and the threat of corporate manslaughter charges) is actually saving them more than it costs.

Once upon a time, there used to be a cycling proficiency test offered in schools in about year 6 (5?).. age 10-11ish, anyway, to instill a bit of road sense into kids before they went out and got paper-rounds/themselves killed. They had to learn to use hand-signals, road positioning etc. Of course, it wasn't compulsory (not everyone had a bike/could ride one) but it meant that they at least knew how they should be riding.

I came to university (in Cambridge, UK) and was horrified by the standard of road-riding displayed by cyslists who had regarded their bike as a toy rather than a mode of transport until they were 18, some of them shouldn't have been allowed out. If at least the british ones had been trained the roads would be a bit less difficult (and motorists would be less obnoxiously anti-bike!)

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.